h a l f b a k e r yI didn't say you were on to something, I said you were on something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Imagine one of those old ball-bearing water-wheel-type perpetual motion machine attempts from antiquity which try to re-route the course of the bearings to create an off-set unballanced wheel which turns continuously.
Yeah, I know. Can't be done, but....
If it were a reverse water-wheel which
uses an excess of bearings to force individual bearings 'up' what would normally be the down side of the wheel then it would do... exactly nothing once it used up the force of the initial spin you'd give it, but...
What if the the bearings were instead disks made of a ferrous material, and what if the return trip of the falling disks were slowed by Eddy currents on their descent by falling through a tube made from permanent magnets so that there is always an imballance as long as the eddy currents last?
It wouldn't be perpetual motion, but would the contraption remain turning for the length of time it takes for the magnetic tube to lose its strength if the lag time of the falling disks ensured that there is always one extra disk on the uptake side?
(Speaker) magnets and custard
http://www.youtube....watch?v=3zoTKXXNQIU
[ytk, Apr 09 2013]
Eddys' current descent.
http://www.bing.com...first=0&FORM=NVPFVR
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Apr 09 2013]
https://www.youtube...watch?v=gifFUkcVLoM
why not just use a few magnets, and create real free energy? [xenzag, Apr 10 2013]
[link]
|
| |
No. This idea falls under the category of perpetual motion
machines that supposedly extract work from a static force
such as magnetism or gravity. Needless to say, they don't
work. |
|
| |
I'm not entirely sure where this is going, or indeed
where it's been. Is the idea to make a machine that
looks paradoxical but which complies with the
current thermodynamic regulations? |
|
| |
More importantly - is there custard? Magnets are
good, but magnets and custard is better. |
|
| |
Who's Eddy current,is he a classical music conductor? |
|
| |
Eddie...Eddy... He doesn't care what the focault I call him. |
|
| |
Custard hmmmm.... wait, quit distracting me. |
|
| |
This contraption wouldn't do any work. It's not perpetual motion because it would only turn until the magnetic feild strength failed and it took energy to make them in the first place. |
|
| |
//Is the idea to make a machine that looks paradoxical but which complies with the current thermodynamic regulations?// |
|
| |
Yep. I just wonder if it would 'appear' to be a perpetual motion machine for a fairly long time. |
|
| |
//I just wonder if it would 'appear' to be a
perpetual motion machine for a fairly long time.//
Buggered if I know. However, if it's any help, eddy
currents must fizzle out through resistance within
a chicosecond of the removal of whatever
instigated them. |
|
| |
Of course, you could use a superconductor. But
then everything would have to be kept very very
cold, and the custard would freeze. Why you
must insist on incorporating custard is completely
beyond me. Custard and magnets is invariably a
failure-prone combination. |
|
| |
A machine that operates by extracting energy from a static
magnetic field is still considered a perpetual motion
machine. By your reasoning, no motion is truly
“perpetual”. |
|
| |
The fallacy is that the application of magnetic force doesn't
reduce the power of the magnet significantly. So any power
you think you're getting from a static magnetic field is
really coming from somewhere else. If it were really
possible to do so, you would be able to extract far more
energy from the magnet than was ever put into creating it,
thus leading to an over unity system and invalidating the
laws of thermodynamics. |
|
| |
// Custard and magnets is invariably a failure-prone combination.// |
|
| |
Too true. The combination of thixotropic and magnets though is going to be huge but I covered that before. |
|
| |
//By your reasoning, no motion is truly “perpetual”.
The fallacy is that the application of magnetic force doesn't reduce the power of the magnet significantly. So any power you think you're getting from a static magnetic field is really coming from somewhere else.// |
|
| |
Exactly. No motion 'is' perpetual. That's not _my_ definition, but I suppose I could take credit for it if nobody else has claimed it yet. (I'd like to thank my mum and dad for having me, and all the little people...) |
|
| |
I would estimate that any energy extracted from the magnets to induce the eddie/y currents will be quite a bit less than the energy it took to create the magnetic fields in the first place.
It is not an attempt at perpetual motion... just a long lasting magnetic field/gravity powered clock. The eddie/y currents just act as the spring. Somebody still had to wind it. |
|
| |
//Exactly. No motion 'is' perpetual. That's not _my_ definition, but I
suppose I could take credit for it if nobody else has claimed it yet.// |
|
| |
This is precisely the sort of argument claimed by producers of over-unity
devices to “legitimize” their claims by separating them from
your run-of-the-mill perpetual motion fraudsters. It's nothing more
than sophistry. Claiming that /your/ machine shouldn't be grouped
with those /other/ devices because it extracts work from magnets or
gravity or some other technically finite but effectively infinite source
is typical. |
|
| |
You simply cannot extract continuous energy from a static magnetic
field, period. It won't work for the same reasons that other such
devices that rely on gravity won't work. Any repelling force provided
by the magnet must have been paid beforehand in the form of an
attracting force, and vice versa. In no case can you get more energy
from a magnetic field than the actual energy it takes to move an
object into that field. |
|
| |
Truth be told, I'm having a hard time conceiving of how you would
build such a device, but as best I can tell you're talking about having
a wheel with chambers designed so that as the bearings fall down
they somehow pass through a magnetic tube mounted in each
chamber? So each of the magnetic tubes is mounted to, and rotated
with the wheel? In that case, there's another reason it won't work:
Newton's third law of motion. As the bearings are slowed as they pass
through the magnetic tube, an opposite force is applied to the tube,
and thus the wheel, creating a net force differential of zero on the
wheel as compared to the disks simply falling without the tube. |
|
| |
Frozen custard is delicious, especially chocolate. |
|
| |
Not sure how it works with magnets, though. |
|
| |
//Claiming that /your/ machine shouldn't be grouped with those /other/ devices because it extracts work from magnets or gravity or some other technically finite but effectively infinite source is typical// |
|
| |
Ugh.
It's just a fake over-unity desk-top gizmo. I make no claims that it is meant to be an actual perpetual motion machine. It shouldn't be grouped with those /other/ devices because it isn't an over unity device... it says so right in the title. |
|
| |
It extracts no energy from the magnets in order to turn. It just uses the eddie/y current effect to delay the speed of descent.
Again... no perpetualness. I'll do a sketch tomorrow if there's time and anyone cares to see it. |
|
| |
But if it doesn't extract energy from the magnets to
keep turning, then it will spin for exactly the same
length of time as a normal wheel. You're not doing
anything to reduce friction here, so what keeps the
wheel turning? |
|
| |
<hangs head in shame>
marked-for-doh! |
|
| |
It wasn't until I started to sketch this that it dawned on me that the energy lost by lifting the weights in a curve when they are falling straight down would still equal the amount of force to elevate them in the first place.
It does give me another notion though that I've just got to build to see why it won't work.
muhahaha |
|
| |
//thixotropic// sp. dilatant. |
|
| |
Isn't thixotropic the opposite of dilatant? |
|
| |
No, thixotropic is the opposite of rheopectic. Pseudoplastic is the opposite of dilatant. |
|
| |
I thought the opposite of dilitant was virtuoso... |
|
| |
If one were a thick-headed amateur that only grew more stiff-necked under pressure, would they be a dilettante dilatant? |
|
| |
//rheopectic. Pseudoplastic// |
|
| |
...sorry, I'll just clean that up. |
|
| |
//It does give me another notion though... //
Seems to be a Perpetual Notion Machine. |
|
| |
// Perpetual Notion Machine // |
|
| |